With these rights in place Hobbes deems it could only result in such bloody chaos. His descriptions of the state of war are very colourful. Hobbes believes human beings are driven by their passions, which are continuous, and people will seek to satisfy these passions. He sees humans seeking ‘power after power’ and this has no end, only in death, “so that in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceaseth only in death”. In the state of nature Hobbes depicts mankind to be selfish, riotous and have relentless ambitions.
“The Condition of Man Is a Condition of War” stated that Hobbes portrayed humans as rational thinkers who sought to obtain power and acted with self-interest. He saw the state of nature without a sovereign as a “state of war,” where the people would live in constant fear and chaos. To prevent this state of fear, there must have been an agreement that the sovereign would protect his citizens and their natural rights if they agreed to lay down their weapons and give up their individual freedoms (“Condition of Man”). “For Hobbes, a social contract bestowing indivisible authority to a sovereign was a necessary evil to avoid the cruel fate that awaited man if a strong power could not keep the destructive impulses of individuals in check” (“Condition of Man”). Thomas Hobbes did not have faith in the good of mankind, and because of this, he believed the citizens should give absolute control of the state to one
Hobbes developed the ‘social contract theory’, which is the idea that civilians give up some of their freedom and liberty for protection from the leader. This concept, which was used during Hobbes’s time, is still a part of the government today. Hobbes brings down this concept in his world famous book, Leviathan. A picture of a ‘giant’ monarch holding onto a tiny world is used to describe his version of the social contract. The drawing depicts the trade of freedom for safety.
One common attack against Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory is that some groups of individuals cannot possibly benefit us. Thus, we rational, selfish beings should not enter into a contract with them as the point of a contract is self-interest and benefit. Since we do not need to enter into any social contract with them, there are no rules of morality that we need to respect for them. Hence, no contract suggests no rules and no rules means no morality. This implies that we have no moral obligations towards these non-benefiting groups and can treat these individuals in any way whatsoever.
There 's no government quality of life but life is also the most important thing around. Hobbes define the state of nature as a product of human nature where “Life is nasty, brutish, solitary and short the war of all against all”. The violation of peoples one right, which in this case is life. According to Hobbes, in order to protect their lives people appoint a sovereign The sovereign keeps the people safe but, removes almost unlimited power in exchange Anything that weakest monarchy will lead to anarchy to the S.O.N and to war.
His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos. Some of Hobbes’ beliefs were even stated in the Declaration of Independence. For instance, his belief that people should give up their rights that lead toward violence, his wanted a government that would allow people to live in peace, and that the government should prevent violence and
Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach. This approach says that a society is in some sense is an agreement amount all those who make up the society. In the analogy Rawls shows his disagrements and gives solutions or what he things is a more just way of doing such things. Rawls starts off by saying “I believe that the contrast between the contract view and utilitarianism remains essentially the same in all these cases. There fore I shall compare justice as fairness with familiar variants of intuitionism, perfectionism, and utilitarianism in order to bring out the underlying difference in the simplest way.” Rawls strongly opposes utilitarianism.
Some differences are their ideas of government. Hobbes believed government is to protect ourselves from ourselves. Locke believed government is to protect our nature rights. Another where the sovereignty reside. Hobbes thinks it's in the ruler.
4). The idea that a contract is needed in any society in order to accomplish more and achieve greater individual security for the price of some of their rights and freedoms is prevalent in both Mills’ and Rousseau’s novels. On the contrary, White supremacy is an underlying theme throughout The Social contract, while Mills’ calls out Rousseau for objectifying “peoples of color” by ignoring them from the contract as a whole. Due to this detrimental difference in the two philosophers’ beliefs, I have to side with Charles Mills’ and his racial contract. When it is all said and done, Mills’ appropriately addresses the problem and respectfully finds a solution that is not offensive to certain